Choosing engineering: Can I succeed and do I want to? A qualitative analysis framed in expectancy-value theory
Abstract
Recently published reports call for an increase in the number of engineering graduates and suggest appropriate characteristics that these graduates should embody. Accomplishing either objective requires first understanding why students choose to pursue engineering degrees. This research started addressing this knowledge gap using Eccles' expectancy-value model to qualitatively and longitudinally examine undergraduate student's choices to enroll and persist in engineering majors. Specifically, this study focused on identity within Eccles' model to answer the question: How do students' beliefs about being engineers in the future shape their choices to pursue engineering? ^ Framed in Eccles' model, students' choices to pursue engineering majors are based on beliefs about their engineering-related competence and how much they value succeeding in an engineering major. Eccles posits that identity shapes both competence and value beliefs. This study defined identity as students' self-perceptions as future engineers then examined the roles these self-perceptions in shaping their choices to pursue engineering degrees. Gee's conception of four-interrelated aspects of identity (nature identity, institutional identity, affinity identity, and discourse identity) provided a lens to examine students' self-perceptions as future engineers. ^ Multiple case study methods guided this research with each of ten students (five men and five women) representing a case. Results derive from the inductive analysis of longitudinal interviews triangulated with survey results—all data spanned the students' first through fourth undergraduate years. This study is part of a larger body of work, the Academic Pathways Study (APS), conducted by the Center for Advancement of Engineering Education (CAEE). ^ Results demonstrated that students' self-perceptions as future engineers are connected to both competence and value beliefs and to the choice to persist in engineering. Specifically, the results showed: (1) even in their fourth undergraduate year, three out of ten participants were uncertain about themselves as future engineers; (2) students choosing to pursue an engineering degree because they identify with the types of activities in which engineers engage experience the persistence choice process differently than students who choose engineering for other reasons; and (3) all students ultimately had positive competence beliefs, although two women participants continually renegotiated definitions of competence in engineering. ^
Degree
Ph.D.
Advisors
Ruth Streveler, Purdue University.
Subject Area
Education, Educational Psychology|Engineering, General|Education, Sciences
Off-Campus Purdue Users:
To access this dissertation, please log in to our
proxy server.